Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Sunil Tripathi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I considered relisting, but the community seems evenly split on this, and I do not think more time is going to produce a consensus one way or the other. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Sunil Tripathi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really notable on its own. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep How on Earth is this not notable? I was able to make a start on this article, about an American missing person case, using solely British sources (and indeed I found out about it through today's BBC News front page!). I have to ask, since you put it up for deletion just half an hour after it was created, did you even bother to look for evidence before making this seemingly snap judgement? According to your edit log, you perhaps spent at most 3 minutes thinking about it before concluding it should be deleted. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case of any more snap judgements, I'll repeat that the article was nominated for deletion just half an hour after it was created, therefore it's current state should in no way be interpreted as finished. Not even close infact - I created it in a single edit with the bare minimum material, with the intention of adding more later on (and I perhaps naively thought that once I created it, others would also edit it to expand it also). As it happens though, the very next edit was this attempt to delete it, based on apparently no research of what information is out there on it at all. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's also quite annoying is that the person who thought it was so bad it needed deleting right away, seems to have just logged off straight after without bothering to stick around and answer the obvious question of 'why?'. Quite rude if you ask me. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to get into (or even close to ) personal attacks here. Transcendence (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination above was poorly done. And the person didn't even sign it. Crtew (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's no excuse to make things personal. Also, the nomination was signed. It was auto-generated by Twinkle.Transcendence (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. A sad story to be sure, but not worthy of an entry. As most a mention in the Boston Marathon Bombing article or an example to be used showing the misuse of crowdsourcing. Arzel (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This passes one of my personal basic notability tests of "have I heard of it?", and, in this case, an added test of "had I heard of it before it became notable for the wrong reason?" The disappearance received a decent amount of coverage before the bombings, and as such I think it deserves an article. That said, I think that we should work to reduce the focus on the bombings in the article. Really, that should just be a sidenote to the altogether notable story of his disappearance and the subsequent efforts to find him and media coverage. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
?. I only created the article because it became well known because of the bombings, so I don't thinking removing that material makes any sense. What coverage did it receive beforehand that would have taken it into encyclopedic territory? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It received coverage as a medium-profile disappearance case. I believe there was something of a campaign to find him. I think at least as much should be written about that as about the bombings. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I just noticed a passing comment in a story today that the FBI had joined the search last month (i.e. before the bombings). Any idea why? I presume that's not something they would normally do. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The disappearance of this Brown University student was all over the news media, when it was first discovered that he was missing at the end of last year, in at least the Southern New England portion of the USA. There was even a recent set of articles about how this guy's family & friends were still looking forward to finding him alive & well somewhere, which seemed to me to be a little naive...but whatever. Guy1890 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BASIC requires "subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The author (Gruesome Foursome) has established those. While WP:VICTIM might give the impression this should be merged into the Boston Marathon Bombing, what happen here has nothing to do directly with the event, but as a seperate consequence of the event. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The family is already wounded with the loss of their son. Do not burden them further by including Boston Bombing as a reference on Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanasudhi07 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every mention of Boston Bombing is a WP:BLP violation--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep at least for now. There are probably WP:NOTNEWS concerns here, but this story is getting substantial coverage in reliable sources at the moment. This story may become more notable as it relates to Reddit, Internet vigilantism, etc., and I suspect we'll know better whether that's the case before this AfD closes. Redirecting Sunil Tripathi to the bombings page would be far worse than having this article, IMO. Oren0 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that a strange argument since if not for the bombing link it is unlikely that there would be a page at all. Seems that the only reason he is getting coverage is because of the bombing. People die tragically all the time, very view have their own article. Arzel (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"since if not for the bombing link it is unlikely that there would be a page at all. Seems that the only reason he is getting coverage is because of the bombing." I'm not sure of that at all. There is usually plenty of media coverage (see above) when there is a disappearance like this. Whether or not every disappearance should have its own Wikipedia article is a valid concern, but the fact that his name was falsely pushed as a potential terrorist shortly after the Boston Bombings only adds to the notability of this topic IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm not suggesting that the bombings shouldn't be mentioned in the article, only that his name should not be redirected to the bombings. If this AfD closes as "delete", I think it'd be preferable to have his Sunil Tripathi be a redlink versus a redirect to the bombings page. Oren0 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Numerous sources from major news organizations. Is notable, passes all criteria from Wikipedia:Notability.Transcendence (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep, the issues in the event go beyond the situational news over a common missing person. Diego (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the Primary Notability Criterion easily and relates to multiple other issues, which are likely to result in active links. If time proves otherwise, the article can always be deleted later. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Effort went into creating the article and there was already a fair amount of news coverage about the disappearance before the bombing. The bombing and mis-identification elevated the case to worldwide attention. It continues to get attention now. It makes no sense to merge the info into the bombing article. I can see no reason here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy to delete this. SNOW Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While you are at it, delete the entirety of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.152.26 (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that someone put effort into creating an article is not a policy-based ground for a "Keep" argument, nor is the fact that someone has heard of the person. The individual is non-notable except for his mistaken connection to the bombings. WP:BLP1E applies to the recently dead, per WP:BDP, so " Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.". Delete also per WP:NOTNEWS. A flurry of stories such as those mentioned above might make sense if one is a news editor trying to sell papers or a TV news editor trying to maintain viewer interest, but this is an encyclopedia, and we should be concerned with things of enduring importance, rather than mistaken and sensational coverage of someone's personal tragedy like this. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of everyone who disappeared or died tragically.Edison (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With regards to WP:NOTNEWS, an argument could be made that this event is notable under WP:EVENT in that it has or will have a lasting effect on Reddit and that there was significant coverage. While there hasn't been any policy change yet, there was this blog post http://blog.reddit.com/2013/04/reflections-on-recent-boston-crisis.html and given that they instituted policy changes due to witch hunts in the past, it's possible they might again. Transcendence (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As has already been pointed out by others, my choice of 'Disappearance of...' as a title was deliberate - the intent of it is not to be a biography of Sunil but an article about a missing person case that became notable for reasons that are obviously very discriminate and which quite clearly don't apply to 99.9999999% of other disappearances or tragic deaths. The mistaken connection to the bombings is precisely what makes this a notable missing person case. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I would say transwiki to Wikinews:, but apparently they have an incompatible license. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Applying the logic of enduring importance is flawed. The event happened over the last month or so. How can you decide if it has enduring importance and by who's standard exactly? Many good points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dlugar/WP:NOTANTINEWS There is no way that this should be deleted while the topic is hot in the news around the world. Also consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RAPID#Don.27t_rush_to_delete_articles which suggests strongly that this deletion discussion is premature. On the basis of the votes, clear guidance against rushing to delete, this is a WP:SNOW case. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that there was a rush to delete while the story is ongoing. However, there are good reasons that I see for a keep just on the merit of the article at this time, such as WP:SIGCOV. The fact that the article is called "The disappearance of ..." already puts more weight toward the phenomenon than the person, and in this case was properly used. The later would be an argument against the WP:NOTNEWS. What we don't know now is whether this case will resonate enough with people later that they will refer back to it. Somebody should really have categorized the article at this point. Crtew (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What ongoing story? Now that everything is known about the misidentification this will be the end of it. Arzel (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's patently false. There isn't even an official cause of death yet. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't merit its own page, and is an unbelievably painful reminder to the family and friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.207.225 (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What purpose does this article serve? He was a missing person, wrongly identified as a bomber and who likely died before the Boston bombings even took place. We have no indication he was even seriously considered by law enforcement. The story only exists because the media wanted it to. People will forget his name in a week because people disappear every day and those people often turn up dead. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The most he deserves is a possible 2-sentence mention on Reddit's page and the Boston bombing page, but without linking his death to their actions. We should start with a brief mention and go from there. Only if there is conclusive evidence tying his death to the allegations of him being the bomber (which currently appears doubtful) should we start to consider actually making a page. Angry Lampshade (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI: There was foul play during this process by IP user 68.231.15.56 who made three edits and turned the nominator's comment into a vote. Nominators cannot vote. The diffs are [1] [2] [3]Crtew (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but i thought that the editor had not followed correct format and believed that i was just following the exact wishes the editor wanted to express - if i was in error then i express my deepest apologies--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, There are at least two rules to keep in mind here: 1) You cannot change other people's votes or edits. 2) The nominator makes a statement in support but cannot vote in support of the nomination. These edits should be reverted by an uninvolved admin.Crtew (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful content to Boston Marathon bombings and delete. Tripathi is not notable on his own, and neither are the circumstances of his death. The fact of his misidentification as a suspect is relevant in the article on the bombings, but no more than that. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: merge and delete isn't really a valid option, due to Wikipedia's copyright policies. (See WP:ATD-M and WP:Merge and delete for more information. Merging and redirecting, however, is an option. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS - there are thousands of missing persons cases every year - many of which are investigated by the FBI. The unfortunate stupidity that is/was 4chan and Redit makes it more notable but doesn't make this page cross the threshold in my opinion. CoolMike (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasoning below
- WP:NOTNEWS does not apply when WP:GNG is met. This story received many many instances of significant coverage in reliable sources on it's own, completely separate from the Boston Bombings. Also, this story was being reported (albeit barely locally), before the bombings.
- We cannot use "but the family will be burdened with the memory" as an excuse for deleting an article that otherwise meets policy. This is well sourced, and it is notable per GNG. Any comment of "family" or "notnews" amounts to I don't like it at this time, as notnews does not apply when things become both independently notable and more than a few minutes passed, and the family's feelings play no part in our building of an encyclopedia, think about the Tsarnaevs' article, or the article on the shooters at Columbine. All in all, there's absolutely not policy-rooted reason to delete this article, but multiple policy-rooted reasons to keep. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a private tragedy that was mistakenly turned into a public issue. It was not his disappearance that prompted newspapers to write about him, but the mistaken identification. We can include those details in the Boston massacre article if there's a section about the input of social media. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It was not his disappearance that prompted newspapers to write about him". Sure it was, and then, later, after the recent Boston Bombing, there was even more coverage about this guy. Was there significantly less coverage about Tripathi before he was ever (unfairly) tied to those bombings? I'm sure there was indeed. Guy1890 (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can people just re-read the opening line if they're in any way confused as to why this article exists, before giving their reasons here as to why it shouldn't. Its wording was chosen quite deliberately, I assure you. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah I just did - the openning line to WP:BLP (the only thing relevant to this discusion) is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" which is the only thing we need to read thanks--68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah I just did again - the openning line to WP:BLP1E (the only thing else that is relevant to this discusion) is "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." which is the only thing we need to read thanks.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article event is certainly notable, and has been widely reported; enoough grounds for inclusion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this is headed for no consensus, but I wanted to weigh in. It undoubtedly falls under wp:blp1e, wp:notnews, and wp:blpcrime. BLP concerns remain in the close proximity of ones death because the immediate family and next-of-kin are to be considered. My76Strat (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this "undoubtedly" falls under BLP1E, can you please answer the point I make below about how it seemingly isn't even covered by BLP1E (it's being saved in this same edit). Can you also explain why you think BLPCRIME is relevant, as I can't see that at all from the wording of that section. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Without receiving extra attention during the Boston Marathon Manhunt, this may or may not have been notable, but given the fact that it was highly publicized, still notable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a clear case of WP:BLP1E. This is only truly notable in the light of the Boston bombing and only deserves a brief mention there. While it may be notable in the sense of GNG, that isn't automatically a justification to write a separate article. SmartSE (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a "clear case of BLP1E" when BLP1E states that "It is important for editors to understand that .... WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people"? And similarly, how can it be a clear case of BLP1E when the article isn't even a biography? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your manipulation of the article title in order to try and avoid the obvious should not be ignored. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's kind of an odd situation; of course this wouldn't have received the coverage it did if not for the publicity from the bombing misidentification, but it's well-sourced and notable past just the mis-connection to the bombing, so just including information there doesn't make sense. It received widespread coverage before the bombing, and the misidentification just increased the existing coverage. As for it being covered under BLP1E...I don't see how that's the case. The subject isn't notable just for being a mistakenly identified suspect, he's also notable for being a missing person who received significant media coverage, even if the misidentification was what significantly increased the visibility of the story. WP:GNG seems to be met. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wkipedia is not benefited one bit by the deletion of every article that one or a dozen people find unnotable. We can all find articles of Wikipedia about people we don't know, stuff we don't care about, or things we think are not notable or even things we perceive to be incredibly obvious. The point is that some find this article subject notable, it is well sourced, and got worldwide coverage, and these points are enough to justify keeping it Legacypac (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not benefited by such strange logic. We have rules and guidelines for a reason. If we apply your logic to all then pretty much anyone that has a little bit of coverage in a newspaper would have their own bio. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you strip out the heinous and purulent BLP issues in this article, this wiki article is little more than coverage of your next door neighbor's garage band (tragic that some bereved family needs to endure your fascination with abomination)--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start with the personal attacks Transcendence (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revisit This is a notable story. A tragic death that until investigation is fully complete, we don't know how much it may have been connected to the false accusations (hence suicide) against him, or not a suicide and unconnected, or other - hence my call for "revisit" But keep it for now: It's one of the top stories half way around the planet, on Australia's ABC news http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-26/falsely-accused-bombing-suspect-confirmed-dead/4652176 After we know for sure whether it's a suicide or not, whether foul play (currently "not suspected" of being foul play but it's still very early) and whether a suicide (if it was one) is due to false accusations, we don't know enough. His life is not worth less than the 3 who died directly. As noted ABC of Australi put it as among the top headlines for today. Touches on highly noteworthy Boston Marathon Bombings and on noteworthy issues of public safety, vigilante detective work, and more. Right now the main entry on wikipedia for the Boston Marathon Bombings does not mention him at all except in "see also" at bottom, which links to this entry which means if this is deleted then there will be no mention at all of Sunil in the entire Boston Marathon Bombing article, which would badly mis-serve our readers. Keeping and revisiting later will give time to decide whether to put more into original article, or keep this article, or do both (a mention in the Bombings article and a separate article with more details) which can be done when we know more about the cause and circumstances of death and how linked to the false misidentificadtion etc. Harel (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is independent of the subject; it's all news coverage from the same time, treating it as news, and unlike things like Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013, it's not the kind of thing that will obviously be covered by non-news sources. Come back when we get coverage in books or academic journals, or when we get news sources that discuss it as a past event. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have the Boston marathon bombings themselves even been covered in books or academic journals yet? This argument makes no sense, Wikipedia quite obviously does not wait for such coverage before deciding if something is notable or not. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my current count is 14 vs 14--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Transcendence (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been internationally reported on both the false accusation, his depression and his death after the false accusation in social media. To consider that which is internationally covered not newsworthy or notable is absurd, for then, we'd have no entries of any events!Wzrd1 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a link, I think unintentially, that his death is related to the false accusation. However, all indications are that he passed away long before he was accused by Reddit. Arzel (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His disappearance was widely discussed in the media, and there are plenty of verifiable sources of such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErinsonMan (talk • contribs) 04:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It isn't even a missing person any more, now that his body has been found. A brief appearance in the news is not encyclopedic. We do not have to include every tragedy that was briefly in the news. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.